Lens Decision

[AlexColeman]

I was looking for some help for a lens decision. I am purchasing a D90, I will be purchasing the 10.5 fisheye. I cannot decide between the 18-105, 16-85, and the 18-200. Any help would be appreciated.

 

[davebmck]

What's your intended usage?

 

[AlexColeman]

Anything, I am getting the fisheye for interiors, and need a mid range, with some telephoto.

 

[manaheim]

The fisheye is a really specific lens. It's cool, but if you don't absolutely know that you need that kind of lens, you may want to wait a bit. It's super specialized.

Some general questions (Dave already asked one):

- What do you plan to do with this?
- What is your budget?
- What is your level of experience?

In -general- I like to suggest the 18-135 (I think it's a 3.5/5.6) for new shooters. It's an inexpensive, reasonable quality, decent range lens. Gives you a lot of flexibility and will allow you some time to get used to your camera without having to constantly swap lenses.

 

[manaheim]

Anything, I am getting the fisheye for interiors, and need a mid range, with some telephoto.

Ah. This is why. You might consider the Sigma 10-20mm instead. It gives you the 10mm focal length without the distortion. I have this very lens for this very purpose and it's indespensible. Widest angle lens you can get for a Nikon without going to the fisheyes.

(and obviously the 10mm fisheye won't buy you anything over the Sigma except the extreme distortion... which you would then have to correct if you wanted to use it for non-artistic purposes... which would then cause you to lose some of the picture, etc.)

 

[AlexColeman]

-Everything!
-Any amount.
-Experienced amateur.
Also, isn't the 135, a step down from the 105?
In reference to the fisheye, I am using DXO to correct, but how much is Sigma?

 

[davebmck]

+1 on the Sigma 10-20. You can get one for about $500.

 

[manaheim]

-Everything!
-Any amount.
-Experienced amateur.
Also, isn't the 135, a step down from the 105?
In reference to the fisheye, I am using DXO to correct, but how much is Sigma?

"any amount" is a big statement in lenses. Some of the "mid-range" ones are $1500.

I wouldn't be surprised if the optical quality on the 105 you are talking about is better, just because it's a smaller range, but without knowing exactly what lens you are referring to and going and doing some comparisons, I couldn't say.

I like to check the lens reviews here before buying stuff:

Nikon / Nikkor (APS-C) Lens Tests

The 18-200, I believe, has more optical issues than the 18-135, but it is also an insanely flexible lens, which is handy. I happen to have it (I assume you're talking about the 18-200 VR DX). I use it as my all-purpose-if-im-not-sure-i-use-it lens. Works very nicely.

As dave said, the Sigma 10-20 is $500.

 

[AlexColeman]

How is the optical quality, on the 10-20?
I mean below 1K.
So you say 18-200 over 16-85, and 18-105?
Because what I have gathered is that IQ is better on 85 than either other one.

 

[manaheim]

No, of ALL the lenses on your list I'm going to assume the 18-200 3.5/5.6 VR is going to have the worst optical quality. It's good quality, but it's a HUGE range and that is going to give you problems.

I again say this not knowing what exact lenses you are talking about and without researching them, but I'm pretty safe in making the assumption regardless.

Generally you can make the rash assumption that the smaller the zoom range the better off the quality is going to be compared to any other larger range zoom lens in its "class". I wouldn't make a purchase decision on this alone, but it's a reasonable rule of thumb to start with, and then research from there.

That being said... which of the lenses you pick has very much to do with what your needs and preferences are. Are you a big time traveller that has to pack light? Grab the 18-200 VR. Are you someone who needs to do a lot of parties? The 16-85 or 18-105 may be better suited to you. Are you someone who does architecture? The 18-85 may be the way to go... yadda yadda.

 

[AlexColeman]

I am interested in everything, I am often traveling, alot of trip photography, so I am still undecided, I don't think I need the telephoto or distortion of the 200, so now it is between the 85 and 105.

 

[mattyP!]

I picked up a Tokina 12-24mm and a Nikkor 50mm to start with my D90 and I couldn't be any happier

 

[AlexColeman]

Thanks for the input, however I am still trying to decide between the aforementioned lens.

 

[AlexColeman]

Bump.

 

[djacobox372]

How is the optical quality, on the 10-20?
I mean below 1K.
So you say 18-200 over 16-85, and 18-105?
Because what I have gathered is that IQ is better on 85 than either other one.

The optical quality of the 10-20 sigma is very good! However, being a sigma, it could just be my copy.

Since you seem to not be pinching pennies, you may want to consider a full frame 12-24mm nikkor; sooner or later you'll likely be upgrading to a full-frame camera, when attached to a full-frame camera like a d700 or d3, 12mm is wider then 10mm.